Appeal No. 2006-1595
Application No. 09/798,484
hardware modeling simulation. Moreover, the determination and specifying
functions achieved by the two recited logic elements respectively are hardly
abstract ideas, but rather achieve useful, concrete, and tangible results that
automatically specify a source code function library configuration for hardware
modeling simulation. Claim 7 therefore constitutes statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Similarly, independent method claims 12 and 21 recite statutory subject
matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In short, the recited method steps achieve useful,
concrete, and tangible results that automatically specify (1) the configuration of a
mixed-language model to be simulated in a simulator, or (2) a source code
function library configuration for hardware modeling simulation as noted
previously.
Turning to independent claims 22 and 23 reciting a computer-readable
medium with a computer program, we agree with appellants that the claims recite
statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We note at the outset that the
four code segments recited in claim 22 and the two code segments recited in
claim 23 constitute functional descriptive material (i.e., “…data structures and
computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer
component”). See MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(1). “When functional descriptive
material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally
and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases
since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007